This is a slice of my philosophical, lay scientific, musical, religious skepticism, and poetic musings. (All poems are my own.)
The science and philosophy side meet in my study of cognitive philosophy; Dan Dennett was the first serious influence on me, but I've moved beyond him.
The poems are somewhat related, as many are on philosophical or psychological themes. That includes existentialism and questions of selfhood, death, and more. Nature and other poems will also show up here on occasion.

Monday, November 16, 2015

David Ottlinger, a former philosophy prof on a personal
sabbatical, says yes.

I say no. And, I offer a no that isn’t a scientism-based no.

First, I have to respectively disagree with Ottlinger on how
we define the "sciences." I count the social sciences as sciences. If
anything, it seems to be quasi-scientism to claim they’re not.

And, I'll also have to respectively disagree with the
details of why we disagree. Psychology is becoming more scientific, through
folks such as Kahnemann, Ariely, et al, on a regular basis, as far as gathering
empirical data, analyzing it, and constructing theories. And, of course, evolutionary
psychology — done correctly! — is just the fusion of this with evolutionary
biology. Evolutionary anthropology is a similar fusion with cultural
anthropology.

There are differences, of course.

For example, to go to history, now that I've touched on
psychology and anthropology, and indirectly on sociology.

Historic events are multi-causal, of course. There was no
"one" cause (and even no "three" causes) of, say, the
American Revolution. And, historians will disagree which of those causes to
weight more. But, history can and does conclusively rule out that, say, Manchu
China had any causal contribution to the American Revolution.

Therefore, this:

Arguments modeled on science tend to fail because they do
not appreciate the subtleties of the concepts and the ambiguities of
implication.

Is precisely how the social sciences, at their best, are
both social and scientific, because they appreciate the subtleties of concepts
involved, but still bring a scientific eye to bear as much as possible.

To be specific, evolutionary psychology ideas of things like
pattern detectors and agency imputers being part of the basis of religious
evolution, even if ev psych can never meet provability hurdles of modern
psychology, do seem reasonable and fit with what we know about human mental
development.

While said social sciences can't provide "the
answers" on this issue, they certainly can — and, in my opinion, should —
"inform" philosophy.

Hence, my "philosophism" tag, for attempting to unduly exclude the sciences from this issue.